jno, I don't know if there is actually a 'law' that states that this woman acted within her rights, as you claim, but I have my doubts because whilst such a law would protect the rights of the pharmacist to act upon her religious convictions, it would at the same time deny the rights of the patient to obtain the medication prescribed by her doctor. However, the governing body has certainly laid down regulations that allow this woman to refuse to serve a customer, but on condition that she conforms to certain provisos. If she did indeed conform to those provisos, and carried out her duties as her employer, a major high street pharmacy, was aware she was going to, then I have to ask why the patient had cause for complaint, and why the company has launched an investigation that is still on-going? Something is very clearly wrong here. Anyway, that aside, what you and TCL Mumping are determined to fail to acknowledge is that this isn't about the legality of the issue. If the law were genuinely the yardstick by which you set your principles, which is what you're clearly saying here, then you two would no doubt have supported the law that sentenced children to death for stealing a loaf of bread even though that was morally wrong too. I think you are very well aware that this is a question of morals, and that this is precisely what the people here are talking about, but you've consistently and purposefully evaded the fundamental issue by focussing your argument upon a perceived 'law'. I've asked a similar question to the one below several times, but since I've received no response, I'll ask it again.
Tell me why, morally, anyone should be denied prescription medicine, or inconvenienced in any way at all for that matter, because of someone else's religious convictions?